1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAll right no1, we'll do it your way.
Your labelling it as such does not make it so. Care to answer the point raised or do you prefer to pout?
If the couple, the original one, indeed engineered a deaf child. So I'm not talking about raising chances, but they could really make it sure to give birth to a deaf child. Would that change any of your stances on the whole issue ?
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI usually don't mind discussing hypothetical cases, but they should at least be possible. It is my understanding that it is not presently possible to "make sure" that you give birth to a child having any particular characteristics. So I don't feel that the hypothetical serves any purpose; I could say suppose you could assure that a child be born with any number of desirable traits, say physical beauty or high intelligence. Should parents HAVE to assure that their children be born with such traits as they are otherwise "depriving" them of a "full life"? Such a discussion might be philosophically interesting, but as I have said before I am not a philosopher - I prefer to deal with actual issues in the here and now. So your question is a "red herring".
All right no1, we'll do it your way.
If the couple, the original one, indeed engineered a deaf child. So I'm not talking about raising chances, but they could really make it sure to give birth to a deaf child. Would that change any of your stances on the whole issue ?
Originally posted by ivanhoethe killing of handicapped and disabled children (upto 12 ?) in the "Groningen Protocol" discussions.
Now all of a sudden you disagree with the protocol or am I making a mistake ? What exactly was your stance then ?
The "Groningen Protocols" that were included in the article you cited stated nothing about killing handicapped and disabled children up to age 12 as you well know. You are deliberately misrepresenting the Protocols and my agreement with what the Protocols were in the article.
Originally posted by no1marauder
the killing of handicapped and disabled children (upto 12 ?) in the "Groningen Protocol" discussions.
The "Groningen Protocols" that were included in the article you cited stated nothing about killing handicapped and disabled children up to age 12 as you well know. You are deliberately misrepresenting the Protocols and my agreement with what the Protocols were in the article.
"This hospital is the only one in this country of 16 million to engage in euthanasia and "mercy killings."
The new proposals before the government's Health Ministry came to be called The Groningen Protocols. They expand the legal euthanasia law to persons incapable of deciding for themselves and place decision-making authority in the hands of doctors.
Citing examples of babies born extremely prematurely, who have irreversible brain damage or babies unable to live without life support, the hospital guidelines permitted the use of extreme doses of muscle relaxants causing death. Opponents call the system "post-birth abortion." The baby's medical team and an independent consultant must agree that the situation is irreversible and the parent's opinion must be considered. The final decision, however, remains with the professional medical team and not with the parents.
The law would apply up to the age of 12. The adult law, requiring patient or parental consent, has an amendment being currently considered that would lower the age of consent to suicide from 16 to 12. Thus all age bases would be covered. By implication, all euthanasia procedures at whatever age level would now have to be reviewed by a government commission. It would modify the guidelines to cover all who are incapable of expressing free will. At the moment, persons incapable of expressing free are defined as children, the severely mentally retarded and those left in an irreversible coma after an accident.
http://www.thetimesharebeat.com/wash/fortnight125.htm
Only recently has the world learned of the Groningen Protocols – a policy allowing children up to age 12 to be euthanized if an “independent” committee of doctors determines that a child’s condition is terminal and the situation otherwise warrants it. Note this horrifying fact: The wishes of the child’s parents would be considered, but are not determinative, reported by The Grand Forks Herald.
http://www.californiarepublic.org/archives/Columns/Liebau/20041206LiebauCrossing.html
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWe went all through this in another thread; revive that thread (I can't find it) or read what the protocols actually said rather than articles in Catholic papers. I'm not going to go back over it; but even the snippet from the article you just quoted states nothing about handicapped or disabled children except if they have "irreversible brain damage" or are in an "irreversible coma". And our discussion before made clear that the parents would have to make the ultimate decision, not the doctors.
"This hospital is the only one in this country of 16 million to engage in euthanasia and "mercy killings."
The new proposals before the government's Health Ministry came to be called The Groningen Protocols. They expand the legal ...[text shortened]... t.
http://www.thetimesharebeat.com/wash/fortnight125.htm
As this is off-topic, I wish you'd simply find the other thread and post in there and that would save time and not derail this discussion.
EDIT: Please stop cutting and pasting people's opinions about the Protocols, find the other thread and revive it. You are hijacking this thread when their is another thread that has already covered this material.
parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.
The protocol was written by hospital doctors and officials, with help from Dutch prosecutors. It's being studied by lawmakers as potential law.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/matt_schofield/9890769.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Originally posted by no1marauder
We went all through this in another thread; revive that thread (I can't find it) or read what the protocols actually said rather than articles in Catholic papers. I'm not going to go back over it; but even the snippet from the article you just quoted states nothing about handicapped or disabled children except if they have "irreversible brain d ...[text shortened]... u are hijacking this thread when their is another thread that has already covered this material.
Please stop telling me what to do. I was willing to do it your way, but now again you don't want me to continue because you feel apparently what is coming next. Your innuendo starts creeping in. You're building the usual wall. Good night.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis is all covered in the other thread and involves the incredibly difficult decisions that people who have terminally ill loved ones who are suffering have to make. It's all covered in the "Wonders of Euthanasia" thread and the Groningen Protocols are presented in one of my posts. Ivanhoe is systemically and deliberately misinterpretating them for shock effect; they say nothing about "allowing" the killing of handicapped and/or disabled children and he knows it.
Please stop telling me what to do. I was willing to do it your way, but now again you don't want me to continue because you feel apparently what is coming next. Your innuendo starts creeping in. You're building the usual wall. Good night.
Originally posted by pcaspianI answered your question and demonstrated why the question was
PS: I do actually admire your answering Ivan's question. It commits you to defending a view, which puts you in a vulnerable position should you not be able to support that view. If only your friend Nemesio could follow suit, but I would not expect that from him.
looking forward to continuing the debate.
pc[/b]
irrelevant. Perhaps your reading comprehension is diminished by your
big head, but it is there.
Are you going to answer my question, or are you going to be a
hypocrite?
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderShamefully, Ivanhoe has yet to give a demonstration why an
This is all covered in the other thread and involves the incredibly difficult decisions that people who have terminally ill loved ones who are suffering have to make. It's all covered in the "Wonders of Euthanasia" thread and the Groningen Protocols are presented in one of my posts. Ivanhoe is systemically and deliberately misinterpretating the ...[text shortened]... nothing about "allowing" the killing of handicapped and/or disabled children and he knows it.
application of the GP is immoral, so I don't see why it is even
coming up in a thread that has nothing to do with it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauder
This is all covered in the other thread and involves the incredibly difficult decisions that people who have terminally ill loved ones who are suffering have to make. It's all covered in the "Wonders of Euthanasia" thread and the Groningen Protocols are presented in one of my posts. Ivanhoe is systemically and deliberately misinterpretating the ...[text shortened]... nothing about "allowing" the killing of handicapped and/or disabled children and he knows it.
I wish you would stop jumping to conclusions and stop labelling my intentions in a negative way. How on earth is it possible to discuss anything with you. I tried it over and over and again. You are just not willing to understand anything at all. The only motivation you have is your moral indignation, your resentment and your aim is to accuse your opponents. You never ask your fellow debaters to clarify. No, you eagerly accuse them of all kinds of things. Lying for instance is one of your favorite accusations.
Hell, you have the audacity to accuse me a of being a mass murderer and at the same time you are the one defending killing the born and the unborn to solve human problems. You are a fervent advocate of the Culture of Death.
You support people who deliberately impose handicaps on their children.
Together with the aforementioned "qualities" of being resentful, your selective moral indignation and your need to accuse people a picture can be drawn of an extremely dominant and probably violent man.
There is NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER on your part to try and understand your opponent. It is sad to say but I sometimes wonder if you have the capacity of understanding anything at all ...